Difference between revisions of "A Glimpse of Non-conceptual Awareness"
(Created page with "thumb|250px| <poem> "Inherent Existence" as a concept does not inherently exist. So when you try to pin down the definition of the *concept* of inheren...") |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Buddfhism1.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | [[File:Buddfhism1.jpg|thumb|250px|]] | ||
<poem> | <poem> | ||
| − | "Inherent Existence" as a concept does not inherently exist. So when you try to pin down the definition of the *concept* of inherent existence, you can't come up with a "clean, clear" definition. | + | "[[Inherent]] [[Existence]]" as a {{Wiki|concept}} does not inherently [[exist]]. So when you try to pin down the [[definition]] of the *{{Wiki|concept}}* of [[inherent]] [[existence]], you can't come up with a "clean, clear" [[definition]]. |
Garfield's translation of [[Nagarjuna]]'s [[Mulamadyhamakakarika]] ([[Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way]]) posits the equivalence of "[[empty of inherent existence]]", "[[dependently originated]]" and "[[conceptually designated]]". | Garfield's translation of [[Nagarjuna]]'s [[Mulamadyhamakakarika]] ([[Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way]]) posits the equivalence of "[[empty of inherent existence]]", "[[dependently originated]]" and "[[conceptually designated]]". | ||
| − | I like the shorthand of "no {{Wiki|essence}}" for "[[empty of inherent existence]]". That helps me understand, when I perceive at any {{Wiki|phenomenon}} that there is in no way any particle, energy, quality or category exists as an {{Wiki|essence}}, a standalone {{Wiki|existent}} in that {{Wiki|phenomenon}}. That then leads to "[[dependently originated]]", meaning that the {{Wiki|phenomenon}} appears before my [[perceptions]] due to an endlessly divisible network of elements and [[causes]]. Then "conceptually designated" tells me that principle among those elements and [[causes]] is my being here to cast a (perhaps sub or {{Wiki|unconscious}}) conceptual designation onto that "thing", delineating it in space and time as "separate and distinct" in the network. | + | I like the shorthand of "no {{Wiki|essence}}" for "[[empty of inherent existence]]". That helps me understand, when I {{Wiki|perceive}} at any {{Wiki|phenomenon}} that there is in no way any {{Wiki|particle}}, [[energy]], [[quality]] or category [[exists]] as an {{Wiki|essence}}, a standalone {{Wiki|existent}} in that {{Wiki|phenomenon}}. That then leads to "[[dependently originated]]", meaning that the {{Wiki|phenomenon}} appears before my [[perceptions]] due to an endlessly divisible network of [[elements]] and [[causes]]. Then "[[conceptually designated]]" tells me that [[principle]] among those [[elements]] and [[causes]] is my [[being]] here to cast a (perhaps sub or {{Wiki|unconscious}}) {{Wiki|conceptual}} designation onto that "thing", [[delineating]] it in {{Wiki|space and time}} as "separate and {{Wiki|distinct}}" in the network. |
| − | This puts me on the doorstep of "what is producing the conceptual designation", which points to the concept of a [[self]]. That becomes the next target of analysis, as in "no essence to this [[self]]", "this [[self]] is [[dependently originated]]", "this [[self]] is conceptually designated". These taken together point to to the "conceptual designator" in the [[self]], the "model of [[self]]" in the [[self]] and the "observing {{Wiki|awareness}}" in the [[self]]. These become the next targets of the three-part "[[emptiness]] analysis" described above. | + | This puts me on the doorstep of "what is producing the {{Wiki|conceptual}} designation", which points to the {{Wiki|concept}} of a [[self]]. That becomes the next target of analysis, as in "no [[essence]] to this [[self]]", "this [[self]] is [[dependently originated]]", "this [[self]] is [[conceptually designated]]". These taken together point to to the "{{Wiki|conceptual}} designator" in the [[self]], the "model of [[self]]" in the [[self]] and the "observing {{Wiki|awareness}}" in the [[self]]. These become the next targets of the three-part "[[emptiness]] analysis" described above. |
| − | This can be repeated again, and again, and again, until the {{Wiki|neuro-pschological}} {{Wiki|nexus}} of model of [[self]], conceptualizing engine, and observing {{Wiki|awareness}} is sufficiently weakened that there's a break in the conceptualizing, and a glimpse of non-conceptual {{Wiki|awareness}}. I find that this gets more effective the more it is practiced. | + | This can be repeated again, and again, and again, until the {{Wiki|neuro-pschological}} {{Wiki|nexus}} of model of [[self]], [[conceptualizing]] engine, and observing {{Wiki|awareness}} is sufficiently weakened that there's a break in the [[conceptualizing]], and a glimpse of [[non-conceptual]] {{Wiki|awareness}}. I find that this gets more effective the more it is practiced. |
+++ | +++ | ||
| − | Regarding the opening statement "Inherent Existence" as a concept does not inherently exist", and the reference to Garfield, see [[Nagarjuna]] and the Limits of Thought by Jay L. Garfield and Graham Priest. | + | Regarding the opening statement "[[Inherent]] [[Existence]]" as a {{Wiki|concept}} does not inherently [[exist]]", and the reference to Garfield, see [[Nagarjuna]] and the Limits of [[Thought]] by Jay L. Garfield and Graham [[Priest]]. |
</poem> | </poem> | ||
{{R}} | {{R}} | ||
[http://seanrobsville.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/glimpse-of-non-conceptual-awareness.html seanrobsville.blogspot.com.au] | [http://seanrobsville.blogspot.com.au/2011/06/glimpse-of-non-conceptual-awareness.html seanrobsville.blogspot.com.au] | ||
| − | [[Category: | + | [[Category:Self]] |
[[Category:Nāgārjuna]] | [[Category:Nāgārjuna]] | ||
Latest revision as of 20:59, 8 April 2015
"Inherent Existence" as a concept does not inherently exist. So when you try to pin down the definition of the *concept* of inherent existence, you can't come up with a "clean, clear" definition.
Garfield's translation of Nagarjuna's Mulamadyhamakakarika (Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way) posits the equivalence of "empty of inherent existence", "dependently originated" and "conceptually designated".
I like the shorthand of "no essence" for "empty of inherent existence". That helps me understand, when I perceive at any phenomenon that there is in no way any particle, energy, quality or category exists as an essence, a standalone existent in that phenomenon. That then leads to "dependently originated", meaning that the phenomenon appears before my perceptions due to an endlessly divisible network of elements and causes. Then "conceptually designated" tells me that principle among those elements and causes is my being here to cast a (perhaps sub or unconscious) conceptual designation onto that "thing", delineating it in space and time as "separate and distinct" in the network.
This puts me on the doorstep of "what is producing the conceptual designation", which points to the concept of a self. That becomes the next target of analysis, as in "no essence to this self", "this self is dependently originated", "this self is conceptually designated". These taken together point to to the "conceptual designator" in the self, the "model of self" in the self and the "observing awareness" in the self. These become the next targets of the three-part "emptiness analysis" described above.
This can be repeated again, and again, and again, until the neuro-pschological nexus of model of self, conceptualizing engine, and observing awareness is sufficiently weakened that there's a break in the conceptualizing, and a glimpse of non-conceptual awareness. I find that this gets more effective the more it is practiced.
+++
Regarding the opening statement "Inherent Existence" as a concept does not inherently exist", and the reference to Garfield, see Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought by Jay L. Garfield and Graham Priest.
